reorith

2007-01-04, 03:08 AM

do you prefer a high multiplier or a high threat range?

View Full Version : crit prefrence

reorith

2007-01-04, 03:08 AM

do you prefer a high multiplier or a high threat range?

Miles Invictus

2007-01-04, 03:13 AM

A high threat range is better. Two 2x criticals do 33% more damage than one 3x critical.

For me, base damage > threat range > crit multiplier.

For me, base damage > threat range > crit multiplier.

Pegasos989

2007-01-04, 03:18 AM

Threat range. For me, threat range > crit multiplier > base damage. At 20th level, it doesn't matter if you do 2d4 or 1d12 but whether you do x3 or x4 on criticals does matter.

I just prefer falchion+improved critical(or keen)+bless weapon, so that fourth of all my rolls (a bit less than half of all the hits that hit) deal double damage. :P

I just prefer falchion+improved critical(or keen)+bless weapon, so that fourth of all my rolls (a bit less than half of all the hits that hit) deal double damage. :P

Skyserpent

2007-01-04, 03:31 AM

It seems I'm the only one who sees the usefulness of a good coup de gras...

x3 crit for me.

x3 crit for me.

AmoDman

2007-01-04, 03:34 AM

Threat range, obviously. Sure, 1 in 20 sounds probable, but in an actual game, how often does it actually happen, and confirmed? Blah. Of course, at 19-20 vs. 20 x3 I usually don't care. Just choose which is the better weapon on other traits. It takes at least 18-20 for me to start paying attention to threat range.

Bears With Lasers

2007-01-04, 03:37 AM

Where the average damage multiplication is the same (i.e. 19-20 = x3, 18-20 = x4) I like the larger range, because it's more consistent.

reorith

2007-01-04, 03:41 AM

It seems I'm the only one who sees the usefulness of a good coup de gras...

x3 crit for me.

my halberd just got a little more useful. as if setting it against a charge, two types of damage or dropping it to avoid being tripped aren't enough.

x3 crit for me.

my halberd just got a little more useful. as if setting it against a charge, two types of damage or dropping it to avoid being tripped aren't enough.

Miles Invictus

2007-01-04, 04:17 AM

Heh. That is a good reason to bring along a heavy-critting-at-all-costs weapon.

Lord Herman

2007-01-04, 05:10 AM

I prefer a higher multiplier. In my experience, a x2 multiplier isn't all that much. When I deal out a crit, I want it to hit hard.

Matthew

2007-01-04, 05:45 AM

0.05 x 3 x X = 0.15X

0.1 x 2 x X = 0.2X

Only in cases where you need a 20 to hit is [20 /x3] on average better than [19-20 /x2] as far as I can see. I'm probably missing something, though.

0.1 x 2 x X = 0.2X

Only in cases where you need a 20 to hit is [20 /x3] on average better than [19-20 /x2] as far as I can see. I'm probably missing something, though.

Beleriphon

2007-01-04, 05:50 AM

Keen scythes are the place you should be going. Sure its not as good as a keen scimitar of falchion, but its times four crits. Times four people!

Ahem, but overall an improved crit range will lead to more over all damage since you will get critical hits more regularly.

Ahem, but overall an improved crit range will lead to more over all damage since you will get critical hits more regularly.

Bears With Lasers

2007-01-04, 05:52 AM

Keen scythes are the place you should be going. Sure its not as good as a keen scimitar of falchion, but its times four crits. Times four people!

Ahem, but overall an improved crit range will lead to more over all damage since you will get critical hits more regularly.

Er. Actually. A keen scythe is exactly as good as a keen scimitar or falchion. x4 = 18-20 x2; each adds 3 times regular damage over 20 rolls. 19-20 x4 adds 6 times regular damage over 20 rolls; 15-20 x2 does the same.

Ahem, but overall an improved crit range will lead to more over all damage since you will get critical hits more regularly.

Er. Actually. A keen scythe is exactly as good as a keen scimitar or falchion. x4 = 18-20 x2; each adds 3 times regular damage over 20 rolls. 19-20 x4 adds 6 times regular damage over 20 rolls; 15-20 x2 does the same.

Lord Herman

2007-01-04, 06:33 AM

Bears with Lasers is right. When you compare crits, you should only look at the extra damage you deal. The figures get skewed if you include normal damage in your calculations.

Bears With Lasers

2007-01-04, 06:36 AM

Bears with Lasers is right.

Yeah. That's something of a status quo around here.

:smallwink:

Yeah. That's something of a status quo around here.

:smallwink:

Matthew

2007-01-04, 06:43 AM

Not sure about that:

Where the average damage multiplication is the same (i.e. 19-20 = x3, 18-20 = x4) I like the larger range, because it's more consistent.

[19-20 /x2] is better than [20 /x3], as far as I can see... but maybe I'm missing something.

0.1 x 2 x X = 0.2X

0.05 x 3 x X = 0.15X

[18-20/ x2] appears to be better than [20/ x4]

0.15 x 2 x X = 0.3X

0.05 x 4 x X = 0.2X

I'm probably misreading you, do you mean expanding the crit range is the same as adding multiplication bonuses?

Where the average damage multiplication is the same (i.e. 19-20 = x3, 18-20 = x4) I like the larger range, because it's more consistent.

[19-20 /x2] is better than [20 /x3], as far as I can see... but maybe I'm missing something.

0.1 x 2 x X = 0.2X

0.05 x 3 x X = 0.15X

[18-20/ x2] appears to be better than [20/ x4]

0.15 x 2 x X = 0.3X

0.05 x 4 x X = 0.2X

I'm probably misreading you, do you mean expanding the crit range is the same as adding multiplication bonuses?

Lord Herman

2007-01-04, 06:46 AM

No, it's not. Remember, you shouldn't count the normal damage. Only the extra damage you deal on a crit. A x2 modifier means 1x extra damage. x3 is 2x extra damage. 19-20 gives 1x extra damage on two rolls, and x3 give 2x extra damage on one roll.

Bears With Lasers

2007-01-04, 06:53 AM

That's right. On an 18, a rapier deals double damage, but a scythe still deals single damage. On three rolls--18, 19, and 20--the falchion will do six times its normal damage--3*2(multiplier)*[regular damage]*

Meanwhile, on those same three rolls, a scythe will do the same damage: 2*[regular damage] (for 18 and 19)+4*[regular damage] (on a 20) = 6*[regular damage].

Meanwhile, on those same three rolls, a scythe will do the same damage: 2*[regular damage] (for 18 and 19)+4*[regular damage] (on a 20) = 6*[regular damage].

Matthew

2007-01-04, 06:57 AM

I see, that makes better sense, then.

20/ x3 [0.05 x 2 x X]

19-20/ x2 [0.1 x 1 x X]

18-20/ x2 [0.15 x 1 x X]

20/ x4 [0.05 x 3 x X]

Doesn't that mean that, strictly speaking, the increase in multiplier is better, since it works out better when you need 20?

20/ x3 [0.05 x 2 x X]

19-20/ x2 [0.1 x 1 x X]

18-20/ x2 [0.15 x 1 x X]

20/ x4 [0.05 x 3 x X]

Doesn't that mean that, strictly speaking, the increase in multiplier is better, since it works out better when you need 20?

Bears With Lasers

2007-01-04, 06:58 AM

Basically, yes. When you have to hit numbers above your crit threat range, higher multiplier is better.

That doesn't come up particularily often, though.

That doesn't come up particularily often, though.

Pegasos989

2007-01-04, 06:59 AM

I see, that makes better sense, then.

20/ x3 [0.05 x 2 x X]

19-20/ x2 [0.1 x 1 x X]

18-20/ x2 [0.15 x 1 x X]

20/ x4 [0.05 x 3 x X]

Doesn't that mean that, strictly speaking, the increase in multiplier is better, since it works out better when you need 20?

so... Commoners with scythes and bless weapon?

20/ x3 [0.05 x 2 x X]

19-20/ x2 [0.1 x 1 x X]

18-20/ x2 [0.15 x 1 x X]

20/ x4 [0.05 x 3 x X]

Doesn't that mean that, strictly speaking, the increase in multiplier is better, since it works out better when you need 20?

so... Commoners with scythes and bless weapon?

Matthew

2007-01-04, 07:00 AM

More like Kobolds with Axes, Spears, Hammers or Picks - Swords, Scimitars, Flails and such are out for smashing Adventurers

Borris

2007-01-04, 07:23 AM

Look at it this way. Let's take Grim the Scythe and Bob the Falchion are two fighter identical in every way except for their weapon of choice. The two are currently in two identical rooms fighting two identical monsters. They both do an average of 20 points of damage on a successful hit, and against this monster, each needs a roll of 17 or better to hit.

When Grim rolls a 17, 18, or 19, he deals 20 hp worth of damage. When he rolls a 20, he need to confirm. He has a 80% chance of dealing 20 hp of damage and a 20% chance to slash for 80. On average, Grim does 32 hp of damage on a natural 20. Assuming 20 attacks where he rolls every d20 number once (he's taking 20), Grim will deal about 92 points of damage.

Now for Bob. On a 17, he deals 20 hp of damage. On a 18, 19, or 20, he has a 80% chance of dealing his normal 20 hp of damage and a 20% chance of critting for a more immpressive 40. So, his average damage when rolling in his threat range is 24 hp. Over twenty attacks, the average damage for Bob should then be 20+24+24+24 = 92 points of damage.

Conclusion: With regards to damage, 18-20/x2 is the same as 20/x4. In the same way, 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3.

However, there are situations where one is better than the other.

Situation #1: Let's supposed that, after 20 rounds, the monsters are both reduced to 30 hp. A normal hit won't be enough to bring them down, but even a x2 critical will win the fight. In this case, Bob has a 20% to kill the monster on his next attack, but only a natural 20 will allow Grim to defeat the monster in one swing. His critical's 80 points of damage is overkill. Anything beyond 40 doesn't change anything and is simply wasted. Against low hp critters that can be defeated with a x2 critical, high threat range is much better than a high multiplier.

Situation #2: Grim and Bob come face to face with new monsters. They still need a roll of 17 or better to hit. Luckilly for them, the wizard henchmen finally catch up with them and both successfully cast Hold Monster. Grim and Bob can each deal one coup de grace before the monsters break free. Bob hits automatically for 40 hp of damage and forces the monster to make a DC 50 Fortitude check to survive. The monster is a real powerhouse and has a 50% chance to make this save! Grim also hits automatically, but for 80 hp of damage, and forces a DC 90 Fortitude save. The monster dies unless it rolls a natural 20. With Coups de grace and other situtations where a critical is automatic, a high multiplier is much better than a high threat range.

The same goes in situtations where only a natural 20 will hit. Bob would have a 1/400 chance to deal 40 hp of damage. (average damage of 21 over 20 rolls). Grim has the same 1/400 chance to deal 80 hp of damage (average damage of 23 over 20 rolls).

When Grim rolls a 17, 18, or 19, he deals 20 hp worth of damage. When he rolls a 20, he need to confirm. He has a 80% chance of dealing 20 hp of damage and a 20% chance to slash for 80. On average, Grim does 32 hp of damage on a natural 20. Assuming 20 attacks where he rolls every d20 number once (he's taking 20), Grim will deal about 92 points of damage.

Now for Bob. On a 17, he deals 20 hp of damage. On a 18, 19, or 20, he has a 80% chance of dealing his normal 20 hp of damage and a 20% chance of critting for a more immpressive 40. So, his average damage when rolling in his threat range is 24 hp. Over twenty attacks, the average damage for Bob should then be 20+24+24+24 = 92 points of damage.

Conclusion: With regards to damage, 18-20/x2 is the same as 20/x4. In the same way, 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3.

However, there are situations where one is better than the other.

Situation #1: Let's supposed that, after 20 rounds, the monsters are both reduced to 30 hp. A normal hit won't be enough to bring them down, but even a x2 critical will win the fight. In this case, Bob has a 20% to kill the monster on his next attack, but only a natural 20 will allow Grim to defeat the monster in one swing. His critical's 80 points of damage is overkill. Anything beyond 40 doesn't change anything and is simply wasted. Against low hp critters that can be defeated with a x2 critical, high threat range is much better than a high multiplier.

Situation #2: Grim and Bob come face to face with new monsters. They still need a roll of 17 or better to hit. Luckilly for them, the wizard henchmen finally catch up with them and both successfully cast Hold Monster. Grim and Bob can each deal one coup de grace before the monsters break free. Bob hits automatically for 40 hp of damage and forces the monster to make a DC 50 Fortitude check to survive. The monster is a real powerhouse and has a 50% chance to make this save! Grim also hits automatically, but for 80 hp of damage, and forces a DC 90 Fortitude save. The monster dies unless it rolls a natural 20. With Coups de grace and other situtations where a critical is automatic, a high multiplier is much better than a high threat range.

The same goes in situtations where only a natural 20 will hit. Bob would have a 1/400 chance to deal 40 hp of damage. (average damage of 21 over 20 rolls). Grim has the same 1/400 chance to deal 80 hp of damage (average damage of 23 over 20 rolls).

El Jaspero, the Pirate King

2007-01-04, 07:26 AM

Man, screw all that math jive. I just prefer quantity over quality. More crits = more fun!

Charity

2007-01-04, 07:37 AM

Ah El J their argument is

Über crits = über fun.

Though I personally prefer the dependability of a falchion, I must admit I long to do super smashy damage with a scythe of doom.

Über crits = über fun.

Though I personally prefer the dependability of a falchion, I must admit I long to do super smashy damage with a scythe of doom.

Mike_G

2007-01-04, 07:44 AM

It seems I'm the only one who sees the usefulness of a good coup de gras...

"Strike of Fat?"

I assume you mean coup de grace.

"Strike of Fat?"

I assume you mean coup de grace.

Matthew

2007-01-04, 07:47 AM

Ah El J their argument is

Über crits = über fun.

Though I personally prefer the dependability of a falchion, I must admit I long to do super smashy damage with a scythe of doom.

Nah, my argument is dumping Criticals Hits makes for more fun... for me, this is just one more reason to either make Critical Hits of one type or dump them altogether. I'm leaning towards the latter these days (but obviously you couldn't just dump criticals for 3.x without changing a bunch of other things)

Über crits = über fun.

Though I personally prefer the dependability of a falchion, I must admit I long to do super smashy damage with a scythe of doom.

Nah, my argument is dumping Criticals Hits makes for more fun... for me, this is just one more reason to either make Critical Hits of one type or dump them altogether. I'm leaning towards the latter these days (but obviously you couldn't just dump criticals for 3.x without changing a bunch of other things)

OzymandiasVolt

2007-01-04, 09:30 AM

Hmm...crit preferences...

It depends. Are we talking about using a weapon with crit-activated abilities in combat, or are we talking about CDGing helpless foes?

It depends. Are we talking about using a weapon with crit-activated abilities in combat, or are we talking about CDGing helpless foes?

pestilenceawaits

2007-01-04, 09:40 AM

I actually like the higher multiplier for two main reasons. First a 20 will always hit and just because you threaten a crit on an 18 doesn't mean it goes past the AC. I love that a 20 always hits and I know you still have to confirm (which is why feats that give bonuses to confirm are nice). the second reason is because the higher multiplier reminds me of the thief's backstab ability from previous editions of the game. :smalltongue:

ghost_warlock

2007-01-04, 10:16 AM

For me, this largely depends on the character I'm playing. Some characters just seem like 'the type' to wield certain weapons. The characters aren't aware of the mechanical properties of weapons but are typically aware that certain weapons are just "vicious/scary" (x3 & x4) or "accurate" (19-20 & 18-20)

Still, I almost never use x3 crit.mod. weapons with the exception of the katar. I vastly prefer weapons with the x4 modifier such as the infamous scythe and the somewhat under-represented military picks. Still, you have to respect the sheer dependability and availability of the longsword.

That said, I'm voting for the higher multiplier - I like criticals to be dramatic!

Still, I almost never use x3 crit.mod. weapons with the exception of the katar. I vastly prefer weapons with the x4 modifier such as the infamous scythe and the somewhat under-represented military picks. Still, you have to respect the sheer dependability and availability of the longsword.

That said, I'm voting for the higher multiplier - I like criticals to be dramatic!

Pegasos989

2007-01-04, 10:21 AM

I actually like the higher multiplier for two main reasons. First a 20 will always hit and just because you threaten a crit on an 18 doesn't mean it goes past the AC. I love that a 20 always hits and I know you still have to confirm (which is why feats that give bonuses to confirm are nice). the second reason is because the higher multiplier reminds me of the thief's backstab ability from previous editions of the game. :smalltongue:

Well, if you are the main combatant and rolling 19 won't hit, you would be better to run.

Well, if you are the main combatant and rolling 19 won't hit, you would be better to run.

Charity

2007-01-04, 10:36 AM

Well, if you are the main combatant and rolling 19 won't hit, you would be better to run.

cue obligitory Wizards kick monster butt the fighter is just a distraction comment

*looks at watch*

C'mon it's been 5 whole minutes where are you?

cue obligitory Wizards kick monster butt the fighter is just a distraction comment

*looks at watch*

C'mon it's been 5 whole minutes where are you?

AtomicKitKat

2007-01-04, 10:41 AM

Gogo Power Criticals! ^^ Mad love for the scythes and picks. Now, if we could just get a Double Pick. *Drools*

pestilenceawaits

2007-01-04, 11:00 AM

Well, if you are the main combatant and rolling 19 won't hit, you would be better to run.

Very true, but my preference isn't really based on any logical reason.:smalltongue:

Very true, but my preference isn't really based on any logical reason.:smalltongue:

Valairn

2007-01-04, 12:13 PM

I like higher multipliers just cause I do.... I mean big crits are fun, but more crits make me feel better.

Shatenjager

2007-01-04, 02:38 PM

In general I prefer a high threat range, but then again I've had many charachters who carry a secondary weapon for only the multiplier.

Cleric of Hextor who had carried a heavy pick explicitly for the purpose of coupe-de-graces delivered after a Wrack spell.

Cleric of Hextor who had carried a heavy pick explicitly for the purpose of coupe-de-graces delivered after a Wrack spell.

Journey

2007-01-04, 02:47 PM

Bears with Lasers is right. When you compare crits, you should only look at the extra damage you deal. The figures get skewed if you include normal damage in your calculations.

Well that's not quite true if one is looking at it from a purely statistical, min/max perspective. The important number here is the expected value of the damage done which factors in the chance to critically hit. I'll provide the details if necessarily, but this number is:

<D> = P(hit) x <d> x (1 + 0.05 x R x m)

P(hit): Probability of scoring a regular, non-critical hit (includes BAB, bonuses, target AC, etc.)

<d>: expected value of the regular damage of a weapon (includes base damage, e.g. 1d8 for a longsword, strength and enhancement modifiers, etc.)

R: Threat Range number, R = 21 - lowest number in range (e.g. a Threat Range of 17-20 corresponds to R = 4 (because 21 - 17 = 4).

m: Critical Damage Modifier, m = multiplier - 1 (e.g. a Multiplier of x4 corresponds to m = 3 because 4 - 1 = 3).

From a min/maxer perspective, you want <D> to be as large as possible. To compare a given weapon under different hypothetical values for Threat Range and Multiplier, the P(hit) and <d> factors can clearly be ignored. Equally clear is that on a point-per-point basis, one increase in threat range while keeping the multiplier constant is the same as one increase in multiplier while keeping the range constant, assuming both values "start" at a baseline of R = 1, m = 1.

Therefore, the Threat Range and Multiplier are equally important when considering a given weapon.

Using the Falchion vs. Scythe example, since their base damages are both equal, we have:

Falchion: R = 3, m = 1

Scythe: R = 1, m = 3

Therefore from a purely statistical viewpoint these two weapons are identical with respect to their average damage output, including critical hits, provided all other things are equal.

And for those interested, to calculate <d>, take the average of the minimum possible damage and the maximum possible damage for the dice roll and then add the sum of all modifiers minus penalties. For example, a longsword +3 wielded by a person with a strength penalty of -1 would have <d> = (1 + 8) / 2 + (+3 - 1) = 9/2 + 2= 6.5

Well that's not quite true if one is looking at it from a purely statistical, min/max perspective. The important number here is the expected value of the damage done which factors in the chance to critically hit. I'll provide the details if necessarily, but this number is:

<D> = P(hit) x <d> x (1 + 0.05 x R x m)

P(hit): Probability of scoring a regular, non-critical hit (includes BAB, bonuses, target AC, etc.)

<d>: expected value of the regular damage of a weapon (includes base damage, e.g. 1d8 for a longsword, strength and enhancement modifiers, etc.)

R: Threat Range number, R = 21 - lowest number in range (e.g. a Threat Range of 17-20 corresponds to R = 4 (because 21 - 17 = 4).

m: Critical Damage Modifier, m = multiplier - 1 (e.g. a Multiplier of x4 corresponds to m = 3 because 4 - 1 = 3).

From a min/maxer perspective, you want <D> to be as large as possible. To compare a given weapon under different hypothetical values for Threat Range and Multiplier, the P(hit) and <d> factors can clearly be ignored. Equally clear is that on a point-per-point basis, one increase in threat range while keeping the multiplier constant is the same as one increase in multiplier while keeping the range constant, assuming both values "start" at a baseline of R = 1, m = 1.

Therefore, the Threat Range and Multiplier are equally important when considering a given weapon.

Using the Falchion vs. Scythe example, since their base damages are both equal, we have:

Falchion: R = 3, m = 1

Scythe: R = 1, m = 3

Therefore from a purely statistical viewpoint these two weapons are identical with respect to their average damage output, including critical hits, provided all other things are equal.

And for those interested, to calculate <d>, take the average of the minimum possible damage and the maximum possible damage for the dice roll and then add the sum of all modifiers minus penalties. For example, a longsword +3 wielded by a person with a strength penalty of -1 would have <d> = (1 + 8) / 2 + (+3 - 1) = 9/2 + 2= 6.5

Chris_Chandler

2007-01-04, 03:27 PM

I like knowing that I critted more often. Sure the coup de gras with the scythe is going to be silly, but it's like leap-shock-charging. How often does it happen? I'd rather see consistent results, not contingent results, but that's just me.

unlit.candle

2007-01-04, 04:15 PM

I would have to say multiplier for myself. Even knowing the math behind the range. Something about hitting with that x4 is just awsome.

Bears With Lasers

2007-01-04, 04:16 PM

I like knowing that I critted more often. Sure the coup de gras with the scythe is going to be silly, but it's like leap-shock-charging. How often does it happen? I'd rather see consistent results, not contingent results, but that's just me.

Leap-Shock-charging happens quite a bit, considering that all you need to do is is 10 feet between you and them...

Leap-Shock-charging happens quite a bit, considering that all you need to do is is 10 feet between you and them...

Ephraim

2007-01-04, 04:23 PM

I prefer a high critical multiplier for most applications. I usually don't care about average damage output. If something is going to be called a critical hit, I want it to *ahem* reduce my foes to a pink mist.

Pegasos989

2007-01-04, 04:29 PM

Another reason to like high range over multiplier is that dice are not random. Or well, they should be but a lot (I would say most) give some numbers more often than others. If those numbers include 20, the higher multiplier is better but if not, the higher range is better.

A gamer should know his dice. :)

A gamer should know his dice. :)

Fax Celestis

2007-01-04, 04:31 PM

Another reason to like high range over multiplier is that dice are not random. Or well, they should be but a lot (I would say most) give some numbers more often than others. If those numbers include 20, the higher multiplier is better but if not, the higher range is better.

A gamer should know his dice. :)

Dice are not made perfectly. They're nicely made, but they're not perfectly made.

A gamer should know his dice. :)

Dice are not made perfectly. They're nicely made, but they're not perfectly made.

Matthew

2007-01-04, 04:39 PM

Hah. I rolled twenties so many times on a particular pair of Black D20 that one of my Player's insisted on testing them by rolling each 200 times, or something of that magnitude, and noting down the results. They came up average, in fact with fewer than average 20 results.

It was all psychological, a combination of my rolling a great deal more than any individual Player and talking up the Black Dice. Dice aren't made perfectly, but most are perfect enough.

[Edit]Actually, even after the testing, the Players were still convinced that the Black Dice rolled better than average.

[When I roll dice in games, I quite often predict the score, especially when I need a very high total. People rarely remember the failures, but they always remember the successes].

It was all psychological, a combination of my rolling a great deal more than any individual Player and talking up the Black Dice. Dice aren't made perfectly, but most are perfect enough.

[Edit]Actually, even after the testing, the Players were still convinced that the Black Dice rolled better than average.

[When I roll dice in games, I quite often predict the score, especially when I need a very high total. People rarely remember the failures, but they always remember the successes].

Errata

2007-01-04, 05:13 PM

Doesn't that mean that, strictly speaking, the increase in multiplier is better, since it works out better when you need 20?

Not really. Consider that you probably won't confirm that crit either if you need a 20 to hit. And the greater range is more useful in cases where the enemy is only 2 hits away from dying, since the extra multiplier damage is overkill there, which hopefully comes up more frequently than enemies that you can only hit with a 20.

On the other hand, consider damage reduction. In that case a higher multiplier may do more average damage after subtracting damage reduction.

There are small advantages to each, so its up to personal preference really.

Not really. Consider that you probably won't confirm that crit either if you need a 20 to hit. And the greater range is more useful in cases where the enemy is only 2 hits away from dying, since the extra multiplier damage is overkill there, which hopefully comes up more frequently than enemies that you can only hit with a 20.

On the other hand, consider damage reduction. In that case a higher multiplier may do more average damage after subtracting damage reduction.

There are small advantages to each, so its up to personal preference really.

MrNexx

2007-01-04, 05:19 PM

And, actually, Errata points out possibly the ONLY justification for a double weapon... but it's the only double weapon they've didn't include in core.

You want one weapon that has the option to switch between good crit range and a good crit multiplier. With a good crit range, you've got oomph when you need it. With a multiplier, you can punch through resistance. Yet none of the core double weapons offer this choice. They offer range/range (double sword). The offer nothing/nothing (staff). They offer multiplier/multiplier (everything else). But no range/multiplier.

You want one weapon that has the option to switch between good crit range and a good crit multiplier. With a good crit range, you've got oomph when you need it. With a multiplier, you can punch through resistance. Yet none of the core double weapons offer this choice. They offer range/range (double sword). The offer nothing/nothing (staff). They offer multiplier/multiplier (everything else). But no range/multiplier.

AtomicKitKat

2007-01-05, 01:08 AM

I take it you mean the gyrspike(longsword/flail-morningstar combo)? The only other one I could think of was the GHH, which has x3/x4, but both have 20 range.

geez3r

2007-01-05, 10:30 AM

I went with higher multiplier, because I usually go for the weapon that deals higher base damage, which tends to be one with a higher multiplier, but lower threat range. I'm not so worried about what I crit as compared to what I hit when I don't crit.

Roderick_BR

2007-01-05, 02:21 PM

Depends: A Threat can be ouststanding when you manage to rise it, using Improved Critical or Keen, but the best Threats usually came with little base damage. Still Threat is better.

Multiplier is good, though, when you have more damage modifier, like a high strenght, because it all is multiplied, making it more worth. The tipical barbarian, with high strenght, and rage, is better suited with a Greataxe, especially if he Power Attacks a lot.

A killer combination: Use a Goliath Greathammer: damage 2d6, critical x4. Better than a greataxe on raw power.

Multiplier is good, though, when you have more damage modifier, like a high strenght, because it all is multiplied, making it more worth. The tipical barbarian, with high strenght, and rage, is better suited with a Greataxe, especially if he Power Attacks a lot.

A killer combination: Use a Goliath Greathammer: damage 2d6, critical x4. Better than a greataxe on raw power.

danielf

2007-01-05, 02:39 PM

crit multiplier is very nice for making 50 damage in one attack

Errata

2007-01-05, 02:46 PM

Roderick, I'm sorry, but neither of the two points you made make sense mathematically. A 3x multiplier is roughly equivalent to 19-20 in terms of expected damage (you can see some explanation of why by reading the thread). Improved critical or keen does not change that balance in any way, nor does strength bonus. The arguments for one or the other are not affected by those. Sorry. Only in much more specific instances is one better than the other.

However, your point about getting big numbers with a high multiplier does bring up another thing thats good about high multipliers, which is the massive damage rule. Despite having similar expected damage, a high multiplier could be overall more likely to trigger the sudden death threshold.

However, your point about getting big numbers with a high multiplier does bring up another thing thats good about high multipliers, which is the massive damage rule. Despite having similar expected damage, a high multiplier could be overall more likely to trigger the sudden death threshold.

Tola

2007-01-05, 11:32 PM

Threat Range.

If you're going for Criticals, you want as many as is possible to fit in.

If you're going for Criticals, you want as many as is possible to fit in.

Quirinus_Obsidian

2007-01-06, 12:11 AM

I vote for Threat Range... but having both is nice too.

Thrawn183

2007-01-06, 12:54 AM

There are a lot of weapon abilities that are only activated on crits that aren't reliant upon damage. That's another in the high range column. On the other hand, when fighting something really big and bad, that you would probably never normally be able to beat, its the high multiplyer that's going to save you not the range.

Oh, and things like charge smiting.

Oh, and things like charge smiting.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.